Madras High Court
Ramareddy vs State Rep.By on 16 July, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.1931 and 1932 of 2018
Ramareddy ...Petitioner
Versus
1.State rep.by
Inspector of Police,
E-2, Royapettah Police Station,
Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
(Cr.No.362 of 2017)
2.Vijayakumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in
C.C.No.6257 of 2017 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saidapet, Concerned in Cr.No.362 of 2017 on the file of the 1st
respondent under Sections 294(b) IPC based on the alleged averments
contained in the complaint made by the 2nd respondent and to quash the
same in respect of the petitioner.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kamalakannan
For RR1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to call for the records
relating to C.C.No.6257 of 2017, on the file of the learned XVIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Concerned in Cr.No.362 of 2017, on the
file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the
defacto complainant are neighbours and there was a property dispute with
regard to the construction of fencing to an extent of 3 ½ feet in the 5 ½ feet
passage, which was the subject matter of Suit. It is alleged that when the
defaco complainant questioned about the construction of fencing in the
extent of 3 ½ feet, the petitioner, in a drunken stage, scolded him in filthy
language. Hence the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint in
Cr.No.362 of 2017 on the file of the respondent Police. After investigation,
the respondent Police had filed a Charge Sheet in C.C.No.6257 of 2017, on
the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
3. The petitioner claims that earlier there was a Civil Suit in
O.S.No.704 of 1970 filed by Parthasarathy and Vedachalam / plaintiffs,
from whom the defacto complainant claims his right and the grandmother of
the petitioner herein was the defendant in the said Suit. The Suit was
dismissed on 30.08.1972 wherein the plaintiffs have failed to establish their
right over the property and the said judgment was not put to challenge and
therefore, it has become final. The petitioner further claims that though the
defacto complainant knows very well about all these facts, unnecessarily he
picked up quarrel with the petitioner on 04.07.2021 with regard to the
fencing to the extent of 3 ½ feet, where the defacto complainant has no
right. Without ascertaining the civil nature of the dispute, the complaint has
been entertained by the 1st respondent Police, as if the petitioner had
committed mistake.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the defacto complainant had given a complaint against the petitioner as
if the petitioner was attempting to put up a gate at the defacto complainant's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
place and further complained that the petitioner has abused the defacto
complainant in a drunken state. The fact is that the petitioner was never
drunken as stated in the complaint. In order to escape from their act of
manhandling, whereby they caused grievous injury to the petitioner, the
defacto complainant along with his brother lodged a false complaint before
the respondent Police in Cr.No.362 of 2017, which is only a counter
complaint, as even before the said complaint of the defacto complainant, the
petitioner herein has also lodged a complaint against the defacto
complainant in Cr.No.361 of 2017. Further the petitioner was also referred
to Royappettah Government Hospital, Royapettah, Chennai, for the injuries
caused by the defacto complainant, where he was treated and discharged.
The 1st respondent has filed the Charge Sheet in the complaint given by the
petitioner in C.C.NO.6256 of 2017, wherein the Doctor who attended the
petitioner has spoken about the injuries sustained by the petitioner and in
the Charge Sheet filed in C.C.No.6257 of 2017 in Cr.No.362 of 2017, there
is no evidence to state that this petitioner had consumed alcohol and had
quarrel, on the alleged date of incident. While being so, allegation against
the petitioner that he abused the defacto complainant, is not made out and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
thereby, implicating the petitioner by registering a case in Cr.No.362 of
2017 for the offence under Section 294(b), is not sustainable and prays for
quashment of proceeding pending before the Trial Court.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) fairly
conceded that in respect of the petitioner's complaint, C.C.No.6256 of 2017,
on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, the same
ended in conviction as the respondent pleaded guilty and further no records
to prove that the petitioner was drunk was annexed along with the Charge
Sheet filed in C.C.No.6257 of 2017 in Cr.No.362 of 2017.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions
and also perused the materials available on record.
7. On an overall consideration of the factual matrix, this Court
is of the view that there was complaint and counter complaint by the
petitioner and the defacto complainant in Cr.No.361 of 2017 (petitioner's
complaint) and Cr. No.362 of 2017 (defacto complainant's complaint) and in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
both Criminal Cases, the Charge Sheets were filed in C.C.No.6256 of 2017
in Cr.No.361 of 2017 and C.C.No.6257 of 2017 in Cr.No.362 of 2017. It is
represented that C.C.No.6256 of 2017 ended in conviction of the defacto
complainant, who pleaded guilty. However, though allegation has been
made against the petitioner as if he consumed alcohol and quarreled with
the defacto complainant, when he questioned about the construction of
fence on the property in question, no medical records relating to the drunken
state of the petitioner was filed along with the Charge Sheet. Further for
implicating the petitioner under Section 294(b) IPC, no evidences were
produced and no witnesses were examined. Therefore, without producing
any evidence alleging that the petitioner was in drunken state and entered
into quarrel with the defacto complainant and abused him is not borne out
by record and conducting trial against the petitioner in C.C.No.6257 of 2017
(Cr.No.362 of 2017) for the commission of offence under Section 294(b)
IPC, is unsustainable and therefore, this Court has no hesitation to quash the
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
8. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal
Original Petition is allowed and C.C.No.6257 of 2017, on the file of the
learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, is quashed. Consequently
connected miscellaneous petition are closed.
16.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
sk
To
1.Inspector of Police,
E-2, Royapettah Police Station,
Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
2.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Sk
CRL.O.P.No.4195 of 2018
16.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
